dew1679666265

Out of curiosity, what are prime years now considered to be? I've always heard they were 27-31 (or 32) for the majority of players and hadn't heard that they changed them. But now I keep hearing that Headley apparently is barely still in his prime years. When did that line of thinking change, and what are prime years now?

When we hired the Theo regime, I really didn't think we'd be relying purely on luck to build the organization. But it appears we are. Sitting around hoping prospects develop is something small market teams do because they have no other choice. It's not something one of the top 3 markets in baseball should be doing willingly. There simply is no excuse whatsoever to build from one front and one front alone. It was wrong when Hendry tried to do it all through FA and trades and it's wrong if the Theo regime tries to do it only through the minors. You promote from within, while at the same time finding quality players in their prime (Headley, Upton, etc) to bring in and complement those young players.

They're relievers, but Beliveau and Oliver would be promotees as well. And I don't necessarily think davell's lineup is far-fetched, I just think that team would be horrid and likely much further away from possible contention than just one offseason between 2013 and 2014 - unless we spend like crazy that offseason and get really lucky with guys available at positions of need.

He's not going to be paid even $20 mil in any season of his contract, even if you add the posting fee out over the 6 years.

I'm sad that this is on a station I can't watch it on......

Meph was a Florida fan. There's no way I'm him. I love really good players in their prime who are available, all of which describe Headley. And there's always moving parts in a farm system, it's the nature of the business. If we wait around until there are few moving parts, we'll never add to the major league roster.

Add Headley and contending for the playoffs becomes much more realistic by 2014. Pass on him and it's much more difficult to achieve. I don't know. At this point, the consensus is that Vitters and Lake are very likely going to be average, at best, major leaguers. I would hope Headley wouldn't fall off a cliff right in the middle of his prime years, but I guess it's possible. He has a very good approach at the plate and he plays very good defense, meaning he's a guy whose value is likely to stay strong longer than most other players. He's a good bet to still be producing very well in his early 30s. If we continue to rationalize reasons not to improve the major league squad, then we will be awful for the next 3-4 seasons. Small market clubs have to wait around for each prospect to develop and hope they hit on a good group all at once. Large market teams like the Cubs don't have to do that - we can build a strong farm system while also putting money into the major league roster.

I'm confused as to your point here. Are you saying we should plan for there always to be impact players available at any time that we may be in need of one at the exact position we need one? Just because there turned out to be a very good alternative to Pujols this past offseason doesn't mean that's always (or even most of the time) going to be the case. My argument with Pujols was that he was available right then, we didn't have to give up prospects for him, and we knew he was an elite player. Sure there were questions about him going forward, but Rizzo isn't a guarantee to be an elite player either. My argument is that if a very good player comes available at a position of need at a price you can reasonably afford, you should pull the trigger even if it's not the perfect time, instead of hoping that somewhere down the line a similar player will come available. Sometimes you pass on Pujols and Rizzo comes available. But sometimes you pass on Carlos Beltran and Alfonso Soriano is all that's available.

My plan is not to ignore one facet of the organization in preference for another. Hendry was far too focused on the major league squad and didn't put enough into building up the farm. What you're arguing Theo is doing/should do is putting too much emphasis on the minor league system and completely ignoring the major league product. Small market teams have to focus on one over the other, large market teams should not have to do that. And I still question just how stocked we are at third base. I like Vitters and Lake, but still don't see either as likely candidates to be more than a little above average at third. Having a couple of, at best, league average guys in the minors isn't being stocked. Baez is very likely 2-3 years (or more) away and there is still some minimal hope that he can stick at short. Headley is one of the best third basemen in the league and is just now in his prime.

Because 28 year old players with 5+ WAR potential who can be had for 2 relatively cheap years before having to pay them major dollars are available all the time, I guess. That's a good argument if Headley were sitting on the FA market and we were trying to decide whether or not we should sign him. But passing on him via trade because there's a chance that sometime in the next couple of years there might be a comparable 28 year old player at a position of need who we can sign off the FA market isn't the smartest of moves.

Winning major league baseball games should be the primary goal, so long as it doesn't hamstring the future health of the organization. Building the system should be a means to reach that goal. Adding very good players in their prime at positions of need is also a means to that goal. There's no reason we shouldn't be able to do both at the same time.

I think Headley is a lot closer to those guys than you're giving him credit for. No he's not quite at their level, but this is a third baseman who was worth 4.9 fWAR two years ago and is on pace for a 5.6 fWAR season this year. And this is with offensive numbers that are likely depressed because of the park he plays in. He didn't have nearly the hype that guys like Upton/Longoria/Price did in the minors and I think that's why people are slow to consider him anything more than a "nice" player. He's a very good player who has just hit his prime and still has two years of team control while playing a position where offense has taken a nosedive. Of course he alone won't turn this team around - no one player could with as bad as this team is - but he'd make a very good core player to build around and would make our hopes of contending by 2014 much more likely. I'm confused at this point as to when it's a good time to add great players and who we should be targeting. Are we really going to wait until the season that we're 100% ready to contend before adding really good major league pieces? Because if we are, it's really likely we're going to either push back our plans to contend because the right players won't be available that offseason or we end up overpaying for an Alfonso Soriano type. This seems to me like the perfect time to add a very good player in his prime who plays a position of need (I like Vitters and Lake as much as anybody on this board, but they're far from sure things to even be average major leaguers) in preparation for being good in the next year or two.

And I'm saying a plan that doesn't include winning major league baseball games at some point isn't a very good plan. This is hardly arguing that we should give $300 million to an old player - this is arguing that we should add a potential long term asset who's one of the best in the majors at his position. Wanting to build the farm system is a very good goal and one that I fully support, but a team like the Cubs can build the farm system and the major league roster at the same time (or should be able to). It may make the growth of the farm go a little slower, but that should be an acceptable trade-off if the reward is adding a very good, long-term asset to the major league roster.

The biggest difference between the Padres and the Cubs is payroll upside. The Padres probably realize there's no way they're re-signing Headley to a long term deal without significantly hindering their ability to put pieces around him. As to why they deal him now and not in his FA year is because they can truly maximize his value now - he'd bring in much more at 28 with 2 years of team control left than he would at 30 with FA impending. From the Cubs' perspective, we can make use of his two years of team control and then have a very realistic chance of re-signing him to a long term deal (4-6 years?) prior to him hitting FA. Teams like the Padres dump guys like Headley just as they get good because they can't afford them. Teams like the Cubs should be able to acquire guys like Headley because we can afford to pay them and still put good to very good pieces around them. I understand we need assets in the system, but Headley is guaranteed very good asset for at least 2 years (at a reasonable rate) and very likely much longer than that (at an expensive rate). The guys we'd trade are anywhere from possible to likely decent assets (higher level guys) to guys who could be very good assets but there's a ton of risk involved (lower level guys). It's the same logic as dealing Starlin - sure, we could get multiple assets for trading him, but the hope would be that those guys would be what Starlin is (and they probably wouldn't). It's the same for Headley - we can only hope the guys we trade become Headley down the line (and they probably won't).

I thought part of what we were getting with the Theo regime were excellent scouts who are really, really good at evaluating talent. I'm going to be really disappointed if their plan is to intentionally be really bad for at least two years and then hope that enough stars align that we can fix most of that suckage in one offseason. Even if the plan is to be solid by 2014, Headley fits into that and makes that goal much, much more likely than to force Vitters into a ML role at the start of next season. I fully understand the plan was to suck this year and it seems very likely that we'll suck next year, but adding Headley now would be an incremental improvement toward being solid to good by 2014 and it gives you two full seasons to work out a long term extension with a 30 year old Headley. Outside of not being able to afford the prospects the Padres want (very realistic scenario), there's no logical reason not to very strongly pursue him.

If the plan is to sign a big free agent or 2, and we can get him without giving up too much, it would be a perfect pickup. He could be a right handed middle of the order guy to compliment Rizzo. Assuming the plan was to sign Upton, a 2-6 of Castro, Headley, Rizzo, and Upton looks pretty good, certainly in comparison with what we have now. Would 1 of Vitters, Szczur, and Lake plus a pitching prospect or 1 of Alcantara, Ha, Watkins, or a pitching prospect and Volstad as a throw in be enough, with a low level prospect coming our way as well? Headley's a switch hitter.

He'd be an upside signing. Add him and let him and Barney compete for the second base job (hoping Drew wins it). The other is the utility man that bounces between SS and 2B. He should come fairly cheap, but does have upside.

Bah, had to edit once already because I forgot DeJesus. I'll kick Maholm out of the rotation.

If that's the case then then I'm going to start wondering if Theo is doing what he feels is best for the organization or if he just wants to do a video game rebuild and is going to whether it's the smart thing to do or not. At least with Pujols you had the concerns over being an albatross later on because he's old, but with Headley there's no valid excuse other than we don't want to try to win for a long time. He's really good, he's right in the middle of his prime, he's relatively cheap (for his production), we have a gaping hole at third, and he has multiple years of team control even after this year. He plays really good defense, has a very good approach - he's Theo's type of player in a nutshell. If they ask for something we can't give, I fully understand that (or something system-crippling). But to pass on him because we don't plan to compete until he's a FA is a self-fulfilling prophecy - we won't contend for an extended period of time because we won't add great players when they're available.

Trade for Headley (something like Jackson/Vitters/Vogelbach?) and sign Upton/Drew/Liriano/Anibal Sanchez, keep Garza, and this team could contend next year. RF - DeJesus SS - Castro 3B - Headley 1B - Rizzo CF - Upton 2B - Drew LF - Soriano C - Soto SP - Garza SP - Sanchez SP - Samardzija SP - Liriano SP - Wood And you've not added any major/potentially crippling contracts (Sanchez/Upton likely would be 4 year deals).

I don't understand why you think this. He's a really, really good third baseman with 3 years of team control left and is only 28. We currently have nothing in terms of above average third base production anywhere near the majors, and I'm a Vitters fan. We're hoping Stewart might be average to slightly above average, hoping the same for Vitters and then we have nothing else until Lake (if that's where he ultimately ends up). I think Headley's pretty much the perfect target for us to go hard after in a trade.

In fairness, Soriano was a stud in 2007 (to a degree, at least).

He didn't have nearly enough ABs, but Aaron Miles deserves at least a mention.

With the payroll we shed this year and will shed in the upcoming offseason if we don't spend much, then we should have plenty of money to do both if we and they are so inclined. We're only paying Soler about $3 million per year and projections have us well below our budget max for 2013 - possibly $30-50 million below - so paying Soler and taking part of the contract of a guy like Lackey for a really good return should not be a problem, especially if we don't intend to spend money this coming offseason.

Not that you can discount the start of the season, but he's been really good through all of May and June this season. My thinking was if that success continues through the rest of the season, then a couple teams might get really interested. I doubt it, but it's possible.